In an ABC News interview with George Stephanopoulos, President Barack Obama made some rather peculiar comments with regards to Hillary Clinton. When asked about Hillary Clinton and her possible run for president in 2016, Obama said the following, “… she and a number of other possible Democrat candidates would be terrific presidents.” Obama then went on to say, “if she decides to run, I think she will be a formidable candidate. I think she will make a great president”. He did this while making a face, at the 1:04 mark. Then came the money line of the interview …

“I think the American people, you know, they’re going to want that new car smell. You know, they want to drive something off the lot that — that doesn’t have as much mileage as me.”

I believe that Obama made a back-handed slap at Hillary Clinton referencing a “new car smell” and one with “not much mileage”. However, mainly I think he was referring to himself as being so unpopular by 2016 rolls around that no one will probably want him stumping for them, much like in 2014. If you think Obama was toxic in 2014, just wait until 2016. What was a direct slap to Hillary was when he was specifically asked about her, Obama said that a number of other possible Democrat candidates would be terrific presidents. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

“I think the American people, you know, they’re going to want that new car smell,” Obama said in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “You know, they want to drive something off the lot that — that doesn’t have as much mileage as me.”

“When you’ve been president for six years, you know, you’ve got some dings,” Obama said. “You know, they’re probably not going to be looking at me to campaign too much.”

“I think at the end of two years if — if they want me to do some selective things, I’ll be happy to do them, but I suspect that folks will be ready to see me go off to the next thing.”

“I am very interested in making sure that I’ve got a Democratic successor,” Obama said. “So I’m going to do everything I can, obviously, to make sure that whoever the nominee is, is successful.”

She hasn’t announced so I don’t want to jump the gun,” Obama said about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whom he said he speaks with regularly. “If she decides to run, I think she will be a formidable candidate and I think she’d be a great president.”

“She’s not going to agree with me on everything,” the President continued. “And, you know, one of the benefits of running for president is you can stake out your own positions — and have a clean slate, a fresh start.”

UPDATE I: Obama Is Damaging Hillary’s Chances.

Which leads perfectly into the WSJ article of how Barack Obama is damaging and will damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential nominee chances. Hillary Clinton is linked directly to the Obama presidency and is hardly considered one with a “new car smell”. Just like in 2014, Obama may not have been on the ballot, but his policies were. The same will hold true in 2016. Turnabout is fair play. Obama ran against GWB, Democrats are going to have to distance themselves from Obama.

President Obama ’s high-risk immigration gamble may have severe consequences for Washington, the country and the Democratic Party, most of all Hillary Clinton .

Mrs. Clinton’s putative bid for the Democratic presidential nomination is already running into trouble. The national exit poll from the recently completed midterm elections showed her with less than a majority of voters (43%) saying she would make a good president. When pitted against an unnamed Republican candidate, Mrs. Clinton lost 40% to 34%.

Those grim numbers followed on a September WSJ/NBC poll showing a plunge in Mrs. Clinton’s favorability rating, to 43%, from 59% in 2009.

Former Florida Governor and noncommittal 2016 GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush is calling our Barack Obama saying that his initial response to Ebola was “incompetent”. Jeb Bush made this comment as he was speaking in Nashville, TN at Vanderbilt University on Tuesday. One might first say, what response? Second, one would say, just his initial response Jeb, Obama continues to act incompetently when it comes to Ebola and the risk he is putting America and Americans at. Third, isn’t it par for the course, pardon the pun, for Barack Obama to act incompetently? That has been the theme to his presidency.

“It looked very incompetent to begin with, and that fueled fears that may not be justified,”Bush said during a discussion at Vanderbilt University, according to The Tennessean. “And now you have states that are legitimately acting on their concerns, creating a lot more confusion than is necessary.”

Bush said the president was not “clear and concise” about his plans to combat Ebola, and described an incident in which anthrax was mailed in 2001 to a Florida-based tabloid, The National Equirer, during his time in office as an example of a better approach to addressing public fears.

“We gave people a sense of calm, what the plan was,” Bush said. “We talked in plainspoken English. We were totally engaged.”

EXIT COMMENT: Who finds it ironic that Jeb Bush is calling Obama “incompetent” when for years it was Democrats who called Jeb’s brother, President George W. Bush stupid?

Whether you like Mitt Romney or not, Romney was correct during the 2012 Presidential race and debates and Obama was dead wrong.

AMERICA HAS BUYER’S REMORSE … Former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney appeared on FOX News Sunday and shredded Barack Obama, his lack of a foreign policy and his disastrous out of touch presidency. In retrospect, does anyone really not think that Romney would have been a better choice than Obama? During the 2012 presidential debates Obama had nothing but condescending one liners like when Romney was discussing the dwindling size of the navy, Obama mocked him by replying, “we also have fewer horses and bayonets.” Then there was the condescending Obama comments when Romney had stated that Russia was one of the biggest Geo-political threats, Obama quipped that “the 1980′s are now calling for their foreign policy back.” It makes for a good joke, but could Obama have ever been more wrong? Hey Barack … what do you think of Vladimir Putin now?

“I look for instance at her record as secretary of state. Look, her record is Barack Obama’s record in foreign policy, and it’s a disaster,” Romney said. Citing the ongoing conflagrations in the Middle East and the Ukraine and the current administration’s inaction, Romney said: “If you can’t speak decisively, you can’t be decisive. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are two peas in the same pod.”

And to the folks over at Crooks and Liars who have nothing but MEAN things to say about Romney’s appearance on FNS where all he was doing was answering the questions he was asked, Elmer Fudd would have made a better president than Barack Milhous Obama. Romney was not crying he was not elected, America is crying. Had Americans known that Obamacare was a lie, Benghazi was another lie and coverup and IRS-gate … Obama would have lost in a landslide, as he should have.

Travis County, Texas grand jury proves once again Judge Saul Wachler’s famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to ‘indict a ham sandwich.’”

Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been indicted by a Travis County grand jury for abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding for prosecutors investigating public corruption. However, the indictment reeks of political payback and political disagreements being handled via the courts. The indictment stems from when Perry promised publicly to veto $7.5 million over two years for the Public Integrity Unit run by the office of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. DA Lehmberg, a Democrat, was convicted of drunken driving with a blood-alcohol nearly three times the legal limit. Perry had asked for her to resign; however, she refused.

A Travis County grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Friday, accusing him of abusing the powers of his office by carrying out a threat to veto funding for prosecutors investigating public corruption — making the possible 2016 presidential hopeful his state’s first indicted governor in nearly a century.

A special prosecutor spent months calling witnesses and presenting evidence that Perry broke the law when he promised publicly to veto $7.5 million over two years for the Public Integrity Unit run by the office of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg.

Lehmberg, a Democrat, was convicted of drunken driving, but refused Perry’s calls to resign.

Although the Republican governor now has been indicted on two felony counts, politics dominates the case. Lehmberg is based in Austin, which is heavily Democratic, in contrast to most of the rest of conservative Texas. The grand jury consisted of Austin-area residents.

The unit Lehmberg oversees investigates statewide allegations of corruption and political wrongdoing. It led the investigation against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican who in 2010 was convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering for taking part in a scheme to influence elections in his home state — convictions later vacated by an appeals court.

Mary Anne Wiley, Perry’s general counsel, predicted Perry ultimately will be cleared of the charges against him — abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant.

“The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution,” she said.

UPDATE I: Gov. Rick Perry Fires back at the bogus indictment that he abused his power.

Gov. Rick Perry fired back at the indictments and called it nothing more than outrageous and partisan politics.

“We don’t settle political differences with indictments in this country. It is outrageous that some would use partisan, political theatrics to rip away at the very fabric of our state’s Constitution. This indictment amounts to nothing more than abuse of power. And I cannot and I will not allow that to happen … I am confident that we will ultimately prevail. That this farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it really is and those responsible will be held accountable.”

DA Rosemary Lehmberg blames the police for pulling her over for DUI and ruining her career. In fact, the police did not pull her over, she had pulled over on her own in a Church parking lot. The police deputies could not believe they had the chief law enforcement officer in the country on DUI. Since then, not only did Gov. Rick Perry ask her to step down, the Austin police association asked for her to resign as well.

Honestly, how in the hell did this woman not have the common decency and respect for those who enforce and uphold the law, not resign?

“David Axelrod said that this was a very sketchy indictment,” Perry said. “Professor [Alan] Dershowitz, who’s not exactly my cheerleader, said that it was outrageous. So across the board you’re seeing people weigh in, reflecting that this is way outside of the norm…When you’ve got David Axelrod and Harvard law professor Dershowitz saying the things as they’ve said, I think it’s pretty reflective of what we’re working with here.”

According to a recent CNN poll, if a 2012 presidential election rematch was held today, Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama 53% to 44%. It would appear the the American voters are having buyer’s remorse and if they had the opportunity to redo the 2012 presidential election, they would vote much differently. In 2012 Obama won the popular vote, 51% to 47%; however, after American voters learned of Obama’s lies with regards to Obamacare, the IRS-targeting scandals of conservative non-profit groups, a continued poor economic recovery, one Obama foreign policy disaster after another and an electorate that has grown weary of this scandal ridden, apathetic, golf playing and fund-raising President … Obama now loses to Romney, 44% to 54%.

Suppose that for some reason a presidential election were being held today and you had to choose between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Who would you be more likely to vote for?

If a rematch of the 2012 presidential election were held today, GOP nominee Mitt Romney would top President Barack Obama in the popular vote, according to a new national survey.

But a CNN/ORC International poll also indicates that if Romney changes his mind and runs again for the White House, Hillary Clinton would best him by double digits in a hypothetical showdown.

According to the poll, if the 2012 election were somehow held again, Romney would capture 53% of the popular vote, with the President at 44%. Obama beat Romney 51%-47% in the popular vote in the 2012 contest. And he won the all-important Electoral College by a wider margin, 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206.

Last November, an ABC News/Washington Post survey indicated that if the 2012 election were held again, Romney would have had a 49%-45% edge over Obama in the popular vote.

Nice try by CNN to add that Hillary Clinton beats Romney 55% to 42% and make the comparison that it is some how the same as the Obama-Romney redo. Leave it to the liberal media to compare apples to oranges. The Clinton/Romney poll is simply a popularity contest of a hypothetical election that will never take place. However, the Romney/Obama poll numbers are from a knowing public that has seen the Obama promises, political lies and scandals for themselves. There is nothing hypothetical about the facts that Barack Obama is a failed president, who is considered the worst president since WWIIand many, if they had the chance would change their vote and never have reelected him.

In the end, is there really any difference between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren? I think not.

According to a NY Postarticle, President Barack Obama has quietly promised Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) complete support if she runs for president. That would be quite something since Hillary was Obama’s Secretary of State and had it not been for Bill Clinton’s speech at the Democrat National Convention in 2012, Obama most likely would have not been reelected. And what about VP Joe Biden, what if he runs? However, to date Warren has claimed that she has no intention of running for president in 2016. But if she does become convinced to run in the Democrat primary, it would most likely cause a fissure in the Democrat Party and a political Civil War the likes we have not seen in years.

Of course I am going to back you in 2016 against Hillary Clinton

Of course I am going to back you Hillary in 2016

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

Publicly, Obama has remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies. There’s also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton, that dates from their tough race six years ago.

A former Harvard law professor and administration aide, Warren would energize the left wing of the Democrat Party just as Obama did against Clinton in 2008.

Thanks to her outspoken stand against big banks and the top 1 percent, Warren is the darling of progressives. She won her Senate seat thanks to millions of dollars in donations from outside Massachusetts, including from rich environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities.

Barack Obama’s fear is that Hillary Clinton will undo many of Obama’s policies. Really, like what? Make no mistake out it America, Hillary Clinton is as liberal, if not more than Obama. The only difference is that she at many times lies about her true colors. She is certainly even more liberal than her husband Bubba. Hillary will not undo Obamacare, she is the Grandmother of Obamacare. She has pretty much painted herself into a corner defending Obama’s policies as a senator and Secretary of State. Face it, Hillary is just as much of an ideological as Obama. She is more like Obama, than her husband Bill Clinton.

Obama has authorized his chief political adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to conduct a full-court press to convince Warren to throw her hat into the ring.

In the past several weeks, Jarrett has held a series of secret meetings with Warren. During these meetings, Jarrett has explained to Warren that Obama is worried that if Hillary succeeds him in the White House, she will undo many of his policies.

He believes that the populist Warren is the best person to convince the party faithful that Hillary is out of touch with poor Americans and the middle class. Warren, in his view, would carry on the Obama legacy after he leaves the White House.

If this does come to fruition, it will be more about a power-play of who has the power in the Democrat party than Obama believing Hillary will change his policies. It is about the tension that still exists between the Clinton’s and Obama from 2008. However, make no mistake about it, if Elizabeth Warren does run, it will be a battle Royal for the soul of the Democrat party and all will see just how radically liberal and socialist the Democrat party has truly become.

File this one under, tell me something we do not already know … OBAMA IS THE WORST PRESIDENT!

According to a new Quinnipiac University poll, Americans say that Obama is the worst post-WWII president of them all. It would appear that Barack Obama is not the one that “we’ve been waiting for”, actually far from it. Just think, Obama is already at the bottom of the list and his presidency is not even over, sadly. Look for this poll number to go down even further as the US economy continues to struggle, the Middle East continues in turmoil and the scandals mount. Ronald Reagan is far and away considered the best president. What does it say when a current sitting US president is considered worse than Richard Nixon, who had to resign and leave office in disgrace because of “Watergate” before he was impeached? Had it not been for a liberal media refusing to dig deeper in to the all too numerous Obama administration scandals like a Woodward and Bernstein, Obama would have a 20% approval rating and been impeached.

Not only do Americans say that Obama is the worst post-WWII president, they also have “buyer’s remorse” as 45% of voters say that America would be better off had Mitt Romney been elected president in 2012, while 38% believe the country would be worse off. This includes independent voters 47 – 33, who wish they could get a Mulligan and have a do-over to elect Romney. Hot Airopines, “If independents have double-digit buyer’s remorse from 2012, that suggests a strong desire to make up for their earlier mistake.”

President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. Another 28 percent pick President George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan is the best president since WWII, 35 percent of voters say, with 18 percent for Bill Clinton, 15 percent for John F. Kennedy and 8 percent for Obama, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Among Democrats, 34 percent say Clinton is the best president, with 18 percent each for Obama and Kennedy.

Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, 39 percent of voters say, while 40 percent say he is worse. Men say 43 – 36 percent that Obama is worse than Bush while women say 42 – 38 percent he is better. Obama is worse, Republicans say 79 – 7 percent and independent voters say 41 – 31 percent. Democrats say 78 – 4 percent that he is better.

My list of worst post WWII presidents would be as follows: 1) Barack Obama, 2) Jimmy Carter, 3) Gerald Ford, although not sure if he should even count, 4) Richard Nixon, 5) LBJ 6) Bill Clinton, 7) GWB, 8) GHWB, 9) JFK, 10) Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan and Harry S Truman would not even get a vote to be on this list.

I would actually go one further, Obama may just be the worst president since WWI. Hell, for that fact Obama is the worst president since The Revolutionary War of American Independence.

Vice President Joe Biden speaking at the VIP Capital City Club event in Columbia, SC took a swipe at the Clinton’s and did the unthinkable for a Democrat, did not blame George W. Bush. Biden said to the group in the key primary state of South Carolina, the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in “the later years of the Clinton administration,” not under George W. Bush.

Vice President Joe Biden gave a closed-door speech Friday to South Carolina Democrats that included a shot at the Clintons.

Biden, a potential 2016 candidate, said the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in “the later years of the Clinton administration,” not under George W. Bush, CNN reported Saturday.

Speaking for more than thirty minutes at the VIP Capital City Club event in Columbia, S.C., he addressed the prominant group of attendees in the key presidential primary state.

In recent months, the vice president has focused on revving up liberals on issues of income inequality, as he prepares for a possible run against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though many Democrats don’t think he’d run against her.

“He said we have some of the most productive workers in the world, but corporations are more concerned about their stockholders than they are about their employees,” one attendee said. “He talked about how the fruits of labor go to stockholders, rather than to the people who are producing it. That the people making the money in this country are the corporations.”

Another attendee described it as “a stem-winding, almost revival-type speech.”